Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY
Dagon Thyne

Am I the only one who is pissed over the anticlimactic end to Fain's story?

Recommended Posts

TO BE Honest after all of these long multiple quote posts I am not sure what the original point was.  Was it he should of had a bigger part or his death just seemed blah?

 

 

For me, I don't think he should have had a bigger part. He hasn't been what one would call a major player or played anything close to a major part since he cut Rand.

For the record, I never thought Fain was going to play a big part in The Last Battle or even make it that far. My theory was that Perrin was going to kill him, accomplishing pure justice very much in line with what Perrin's character represents. Rand would have then used the Dagger to distract/weaken the DO through Shadar Haran.

Obviously, I never saw a precedent or reason for Fain having much of a role in TLB going in.

 

Could his death have been more dramatic or more grandiose? Maybe. Could it have been more satisfactory? Again, maybe but for me, his death wasn't unsatisfactory either and not in the "blah" category.  

Hell, for all we know, Mat's immunity to the SL taint was the Chehkov's gun BS was talking about and something that was set up a whopping 11 books ago is not something I would call forced or sudden heh.

Edited by Finnssss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was, was anyone else pissed about the anticlimatic death of fain. I was.

The debate over whether it was Fain or something else is hair splitting, Shaisam was a being Fain evolved into.

He was built up to be a powerful baddie. In ToM he was perhaps the most powerful bad guy barring the DO, it seemed almost a after thought at the end of the last battle that he was killed. That IMO was disapointing.

Edited by damandred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

aMol-47

Cauthon rammed the dagger right between the ribs, in Shaisam's heart. Tied to this pitiful mortal form, Mordeth screamed. Padan Fain howled, and felt his flesh melting from his bones. The mists trembled, began to swirl and shake. Together they died.

 

First off, Fain is there and is part of the whole together part.

 

Second, tell me, out of the 3 entities that make up Shaisam, which one would not only know Mat's last name but would actually use it as such. It was Shaisam's PoV after all.

They would all know Mat's name. Fain no longer exists as a separate entity, after all. As his motivations and desires have been subsumed into a new character, I maintain that "Fain", as a character, is functionally dead. And regardless of whether or not you agree with whether or not he is dead, I've already admitted it's unimportant. Arguing whether or not he's dead is a pedantic nitpick which doesn't address my point, which is that Fain is the character we've been following, not Shaisam, and Shaisam has replaced Fain. Shaisam is a new entity, not just a new name for the same entity - that is the problem. 13 books in, empowered, crazy human Padan Fain was a character. In book 14, inhuman mist monster Shaisam is.

 

And he didn't just "show up and die". He was in the process of overwhelming the entire freakin field and just about to reach Rand. He was about to destroy everything and consume, as he put it, the greatest soul of them all.

So what part of this was not good enough for you exactly?

Well, the field was fighting itself anyway, thus nothing changed, fundamentally. And "just about to" means he didn't. So what did he do to advance the plot? Nothing. As opposed to WH (as you've conceded), ACoS, and all his other appearances.

Basically you're pissed because something came to fruition that was set up to happen 11 books ago when Mat was cleansed and protected in tDR.

Or are you pissed because Fain failed at achieving his goal or a victory in something he set out to do because Gee, that's something new lol

No, I'm pissed for the reason I keep giving - he served no function in the narrative, unlike all his previous appearances. That makes his inclusion a waste of space. Filler. Padding. And thus bad writing. If he had no role after WH, he should have died in WH. You might say he can't because Rand isn't allowed to kill him for mysterious, unexplained reasons, but that's actually a point in favour of the "bad writing" argument - it means he was worked in so badly that he ran out of usefulness and wasn't in a position to have his storyline terminated. Granted, that would make it RJ's bad writing, not Brandon's, but it still validates the point that we are pissed because his end was badly written. RJ has been called out on his failures of writing plenty of times, so I've no problem doing it here. This isn't some sort of Brandon witch hunt. My problem is with the writing, not the writer.

 

Stop dancing around and trying to muck up the real points with irrelevant ones and moving the goal posts every time you're cornered.

It's getting ridiculous.

What you accuse me of is exactly what you're doing, or at least that's how it seems. As I said in my last post to you, there are still questions you've not answered - if you'd like to do that, go ahead. If you don't, then really you're just not willing to engage in debate. I've answered all the points you've put to me, I've addressed your arguments and your counter-arguments, but the same is not true of you. Even now, you state that I'm pissed for a reason that has nothing to do with my actual reason for dissatisfaction, which has been stated repeatedly. That implies that my writing is unclear, that you aren't reading it properly, or just that you have no interest in discussing this. Which is it? If I'm unclear, I'll be happy to try and clarify for you - misunderstanding happen, after all. But for the others, I'm afraid I can't help you. I'm not trying to be insulting here, I'm trying to have a conversation, and I get the distinct impression the person I'm trying to talk to isn't interested. If you don't want to talk to me, just don't. I'm not forcing you.

 

 

You haven't addressed my points, all you've done over and over is move the goal posts and then pretend they've been addressed.

It's exactly what you're doing right now over whether Fain was dead or wasn't dead.

When it was important to your narrative, Fain was dead for you and it must have served some importance in your argument or you wouldn't have said it in the first place. You stated flat out and i quote "he died off screen, in between books" which he clearly didn't as I showed above from his death scene, among other Fain only nuances that the amalgamation known as Shaisam exhibits constantly and you even conceded clearly when you said "Now, a new entity has arisen, and Fain is a small part of that new creature".

So now, because you have moved the goal posts 3 or 4 times since and whether Fain was already dead doesn't mean anything to your narrative any more, it's now suddenly a "pedantic nitpick".

 

Now you're just making me laugh.

Which of your points haven't I addressed? As for Fain's death, my initial argument (exact words, direct quote), as stated in post #176, quoted by me in #193: "What we see in AMoL is Shaisam, a being which includes Fain, but is not Fain." So I have not moved the goalposts, I have been consistent in that Fain, as a character, is dead, and that Shaisam is a new character into which Fain has been absorbed - but you have not addressed that point. You see, I can post examples of you not addressing points, I'm not just claiming it happened. That's why I say you're unwilling to engage in debate - you make declarative statements, but you don't actually address arguments. My argument works just as well without the being dead point, because that's there for rhetorical flourish more than literal truth. I maintain that Fain is dead, but regardless of whether you agree with that particular interpretation the main thrust of my argument was that Shaisam has replaced Fain. Which you accepted. Thus you conceded the point, at least in the most important respects. We have not wholly put aside our differences in regards to that point, but the most crucial part has been conceded, so I'm content to leave it there. As for the Fain only nuances, I'm not seeing any. Yes, Shaisam has an interest in killing Rand, but he doesn't express any hatred of him or the others. Consider this point: "The souls of Trollocs were... well, unsatisfying. Still, simple grain could be filling in plentitude." AMoL 45. Later, in the same chapter: "But only after he had feasted upon Rand al'Thor, the strongest soul of them all." His desire to eat Rand's soul is thus explainable in terms that don't relate to Fain's hatred. He later refers to Mat as an old friend, not an enemy. The use of old friend/old enemy is pure Shaisam - it's a call back to EotW, where Aginor refers to the dagger as "an old thing, an old friend, an old enemy". Shaisam's reason for going to SG is "he would need to find a place to infest, a place where the barrier between worlds was thin." Even the dying reference to Fain and Mordeth is explainable: "His madness had retreated." Yes, this is a creature with Fain's knowledge, but in its goals and motivations, in its personality, it is not Fain. In all important aspects, Fain is missing, his story concluded off screen between books as he was subsumed by this new creature. I would contend that that is close enough to death to make the statement valid. Still, enough of me defending my points at length with quotes and arguments - it's your turn now.

 

TO BE Honest after all of these long multiple quote posts I am not sure what the original point was.  Was it he should of had a bigger part or his death just seemed blah?

People being annoyed at Fain's death, and how it happened. And, should have had an impact on the plot. It was underwritten, and not in keeping with how Fain has otherwise been portrayed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 I maintain that Fain is dead, but regardless of whether you agree with that particular interpretation the main thrust of my argument was that Shaisam has replaced Fain. Which you accepted. Thus you conceded the point, at least in the most important respects.

 

 

Nope! I never agreed, accepted or conceded that Fain was dead or replaced, not once!

 

The only one that conceded anything was you going from "Fain died offscreen, in between books" to "Now, a new entity has arisen, and Fain is a small part of that new creature".

 

Keep dancin' though.

I must admit though that I'm impressed, you're not only capable of dancing around everyones else's words but you're making a go at dancing around your own words too lol

Edited by Finnssss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nope! I never agreed or conceded that Fain was dead or replaced, not once!

 

The only one that conceded anything was you going from "Fain died offscreen, in between books" to "Now, a new entity has arisen, and Fain is a small part of that new creature".

 

Keep dancin' though.

I said in my last post he was dead. So I haven't moved the goalposts, I haven't changed my argument, and I haven't conceded anything. I've already pointed out that you have fundamentally agreed that Shaisam is not Fain, thus conceding the point. You, however, did not address anything I said in my last post. As you haven't addressed my argument, I'm treating you as conceding all outstanding points.

 

Also: "Fain has evolved to the point where the Fain personality is no longer the dominant one but Fain is still very much alive as part of the amalgamation known as Shaisam." #177. That's it, right there. "What we see in AMoL is Shaisam, a being which includes Fain, but is not Fain." That's what I said. So Shaisam includes Fain but is not Fain, according to me, and Fain is a part of Shaisam, but is not Shaisam according to you. What's the difference? Nothing, according to the evidence you've provided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was, was anyone else pissed about the anticlimax death of fain. I was.

The debate over whether it was Fain or something else is hair splitting, Shaisam was a being Fain evolved into.

He was built up to be a powerful baddie. In ToM he was perhaps the most powerful bad guy barring the DO, it seemed almost a after thought at the end of the last battle that he was killed. That IMO was disapointing.

 

Indeed, per Maria in a 2010 interview:

 

Padan Fain is also now a powerhouse in the series.

 

Not sure why there continues to be an insistence on splitting hairs, ignoring explicit statements and crafting arguments against points no one has made but we know Brandon didn't know where RJ wanted to go with the character. The whole thing was just blunt plot work that felt tacked on. All the more odd given the transformation and cliffhanger we see pre-AMoL.

Edited by Suttree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It was, was anyone else pissed about the anticlimax death of fain. I was.

The debate over whether it was Fain or something else is hair splitting, Shaisam was a being Fain evolved into.

He was built up to be a powerful baddie. In ToM he was perhaps the most powerful bad guy barring the DO, it seemed almost a after thought at the end of the last battle that he was killed. That IMO was disapointing.

Indeed, per Maria in a 2010 interview:

Padan Fain is also now a powerhouse in the series.

Not sure why there continues to be an insistence on splitting hairs, ignoring explicit statements and crafting arguments against points no one has made but we know Brandon didn't know where RJ wanted to go with the character. The whole thing was just blunt plot work that felt tacked on. All the more odd given the transformation and cliffhanger we see pre-AMoL.

 

Yes I agree, the cliffhanger in ToM had me, at least, looking forward to fain being, if not central in the last battle at least, playing some major roll.

As i have said in this thread before i believe that time and circumstance ( pure speculation) prevented this from happening. Why else for the cliffhanger? I cannot believe BS didnt have something more in mind for fain at the end of ToM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think it's funny that when leading up to aMoL, Fain was being discussed in the same vein as Gollum with most people hoping he didn't play a big role in the final outcome just to avoid those parallels.

Now, all of a sudden Fain is supposed to be some "super baddie" that should have had a bigger role in the final outcome despite never having once played a large direct role in any previous plot conclusion. Not to say he didn't play roles to varying degrees in building some of those plots but his actual presence in the actual conclusions was always absent.

Despite that his eventual death was set up 11 books previously and despite the fact that he was minutes, if not seconds away from reaching Rand when he did die.

 

To each their own I guess.

Edited by Finnssss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I really liked Fain's death. I think he was a great minor villain and his thoughts were VERY well done. They bespoke his insanity and his lust for revenge, power and the dagger amazingly well.  If I had one criticism of his death it would not be the way he died, but maybe he should have been given a little more time on the battlefield.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, is the argument that Fain "died," or that what happened to him was "close enough to death"? Because you've made both arguments and it's unclear what you are really trying to say, hence Finsssss accurate "dancing" observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, is the argument that Fain "died," or that what happened to him was "close enough to death"? Because you've made both arguments and it's unclear what you are really trying to say, hence Finsssss accurate "dancing" observation.

No, I've made one argument that hasn't been understood. Varying how I say things so that if you don't get my meaning one way, you might get it another is not the same as saying I've made different arguments. And the argument is that Shaisam isn't Fain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using two mutually exclusive and inconsistent justifications for one argument drastically reduces the effectiveness and believability of that argument. So did Fain die off-screen, or is what happened to him not death but "close enough"? Did he "die offscreen between books", or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using two mutually exclusive and inconsistent justifications for one argument drastically reduces the effectiveness and believability of that argument. So did Fain die off-screen, or is what happened to him not death but "close enough"? Did he "die offscreen between books", or not?

Yes. By the way, you've not actually shown an inconsistency in my argument, you've shown that I said he was dead, and a clarification of what I meant by dead. If you think there is an inconsistency, please show it.

Edited by Mr Ares

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Using two mutually exclusive and inconsistent justifications for one argument drastically reduces the effectiveness and believability of that argument. So did Fain die off-screen, or is what happened to him not death but "close enough"? Did he "die offscreen between books", or not?

Yes. By the way, you've not actually shown an inconsistency in my argument, you've shown that I said he was dead, and a clarification of what I meant by dead. If you think there is an inconsistency, please show it.

 

 

 

You mean besides first stating "Fain died off screen, inbetween books"

 

To which I said "Fain has evolved to the point where the Fain personality is no longer the dominant one but Fain is still very much alive as part of the amalgamation known as Shaisam."

 

Which you then said "Fain is a small part of that new creature"

 

 

 

[Removed]

Edited by Barid Bel Medar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Using two mutually exclusive and inconsistent justifications for one argument drastically reduces the effectiveness and believability of that argument. So did Fain die off-screen, or is what happened to him not death but "close enough"? Did he "die offscreen between books", or not?

Yes. By the way, you've not actually shown an inconsistency in my argument, you've shown that I said he was dead, and a clarification of what I meant by dead. If you think there is an inconsistency, please show it.

You mean besides first stating "Fain died off screen, inbetween books"

 

To which I said "Fain has evolved to the point where the Fain personality is no longer the dominant one but Fain is still very much alive as part of the amalgamation known as Shaisam."

 

Which you then said "Fain is a small part of that new creature"

That's still not an inconsistency. Fain can be a part of Shaisam without being alive. I also stated in the initial Fain is dead post that Shaisam included Fain. It's literally right next to it. Despite claiming that I've changed my argument, no evidence has thus far been shown.

 

[Removed]

Edited by Barid Bel Medar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Using two mutually exclusive and inconsistent justifications for one argument drastically reduces the effectiveness and believability of that argument. So did Fain die off-screen, or is what happened to him not death but "close enough"? Did he "die offscreen between books", or not?

Yes. By the way, you've not actually shown an inconsistency in my argument, you've shown that I said he was dead, and a clarification of what I meant by dead. If you think there is an inconsistency, please show it.

You mean besides first stating "Fain died off screen, inbetween books"

 

To which I said "Fain has evolved to the point where the Fain personality is no longer the dominant one but Fain is still very much alive as part of the amalgamation known as Shaisam."

 

Which you then said "Fain is a small part of that new creature"

That's still not an inconsistency. Fain can be a part of Shaisam without being alive. I also stated in the initial Fain is dead post that Shaisam included Fain. It's literally right next to it. Despite claiming that I've changed my argument, no evidence has thus far been shown.

 

[Removed]

 

[Removed]

 

Have a nice day.

Edited by Barid Bel Medar
Best leave it at that, yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Shaisam incorporated a "dead" entity into itself? Not sure this is at all plausible.

 

What would you call Mordeth?

Edited by Suttree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 Shaisam incorporated a "dead" entity into itself? Not sure this is at all plausible.

 

What would you call Mordeth?

 

 

He was an entity bound to SL. His original physical body was gone but the entity itself could hardly be called "dead".

 

Either way, what I said what seems like 8 pages ago before Mr. Ares' dance party started, holds true. Fain was still alive, he was still a part of the entity that calls itself Shaisam.

 

One more time, here's his death scene.

 

 

aMol-47

Cauthon rammed the dagger right between the ribs, in Shaisam's heart. Tied to this pitiful mortal form, Mordeth screamed. Padan Fain howled, and felt his flesh melting from his bones. The mists trembled, began to swirl and shake. Together they died.

 

Like what part of Mordeth screaming and Padan Fain howling is not understood here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...